Many thanks! These should help immensely. I'll begin implementing them today. Oh, and feel free to use your sandbox again, if you need to—I copied the material you posted into a text file on my computer. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for the links to the rules and I completely agree with staying by the rules in regards to Schooley's article. What I don't understand is ignoring very real evidence of this possibly being a series of online harassment against Schooley by a third party considering the circumstances (which is patently against the rules as I'm sure you know). The neutrality of the delete in my opinion was quite suspect. Which is why I suggested not taking immediate action to delete. Potentially allowing someone to use the rules of a site like Wikipedia to attack someone else personally and professionally is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Playing into that kind of behavior is far worse and more corrupt than allowing an article about an obscure actress to stay in its archives temporarily until reviewed in a neutral setting. In particular in the current media climate where people have been harassed online until they committed suicide. If Schooley or her supporters manages to prove in a concrete manner that Wikipedia has enabled online harassment, whether it is by the book or not, it could potentially be a massive black eye for the entire site and the site's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drivenhome (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If Miss Schooley feels that harassment is an issue, she should consult with authorities. Both Frozen North and she are in Toronto-area, so the Toronto Police or OPP should be able to easily deal with any harassment. However, I do not think that Wikipedia is an appropriate place for the continuing dispute between Emily and Frozen North - and I think you will find that both sides are being treated equally by the Wikipedia community. Malicious edits on both sides have been deleted, reverted - and offending accounts have been blocked from editing further. In terms of deletion, the Emily Schooley article went through a standard deletion review, in which both biased and unbiased editors voiced their opinions. The discussion stayed open for a week - and in the end, the article was found not to meet the guidelines for inclusion. You should voice concerns about that directly to the deleting administrator. -Addionne (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm certain the situation will be resolved very soon. I know at least one reporter who is actually investigating it at the moment for a potential article. Contrary to what you might think, I don't represent Schooley, nor am I making any demands. I fear that you've been confronted about this too many times by angry supporters. So I should clarify my position: I'm not angry with you or Wikipedia. I do not feel the delete by the majority of the editors was unfair via the rules. Nor do I feel that the rules should be exempt in her article. After reading the rules I fully understood the argument made against her and accepted the judgment. I still do. I'm not calling for her article to be restored and that's not why I'm posting on your board either. I'm simply pointing out that saying something is fair 'by the rules' does not hold up morally. Rules are a guideline for behavior, they are not a shield that defends people universally from the consequences of their actions. Rules do not justify abusive attacks. Context matters, and when an editor potentially uses the rules of a site to continue a series of attacks on another person, whether they are in the 'right' via those rules or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Whether or not the rest of the editors take a week or a month to agree with their decision is also irrelevant. What is massively relevant is that Wikipedia has enabled and justified the continued online harassment and abuse of a human being. I assure you, that is a big deal. And if the accusations of Schooley's supporters are proven to be true (and their case is quite convincing), that's what people will remember. They're not going to feel sorry for a video game company terrorizing a struggling actress. And they're not going to feel sympathy for Wikipedia for justifying that kind of behavior regardless of their excuses. comment added by Drivenhome (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't think that Wikipedia on the whole has enabled or encouraged anyone. In fact, any attempt to harass or personally attack Emily was immediately removed - and there have been several accounts and IP addresses blocked as a result, including that of FroNo themselves.

I think the actions of FroNo on this matter were spiteful and immature - and as a game producer myself, I think they have hurt the reputation of the entire industry - at least in the eyes of Emily, her colleagues and fans. But I think "spiteful and immature" can also be used to describe some of Emily's supporters. I think the only moral wrongdoing comes on the part of those people - who took advantage of Wikipedia's (and various other social media's) visibility and community atmosphere to attack someone else for something that should have been dealt with professionally.

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Flip's Twisted World, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. This edit does not appear minor.VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally try to mark only copy-editing and vandalism reversions as minor - and in this case I did consider that particular edit to be a vandalism fix. There is a disagreement between the developer of this game and a Canadian actress (Emily Schooley) that seems to be manifesting itself over many related articles across Wikipedia. The information I removed was added by an account with no other purpose than to continue this argument. The reference used for the paragraph was a link to a forum where the dispute continues. I have no opinion one way or the other about who is right and who is wrong - but I don't think this is the place to air their dirty laundry. -Addionne (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Addionne, when removing content, no matter what the reason, remember that people using Twinkle, Huggle, Igloo and the like will not see the context, just the edit, and it's often too much to ask them to understand the issues, and marking the removal of sourced content as minor is a red flag. I would know, I've mistakenly warned people doing it! Still, you were right to remove it, and it seems VQuakr is involved at the page now. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - and I've used Huggle enough to know that those kinds of tools make it easy to revert, warn or change things without having all the details. But tools need to be used in conjunction with actual examination, not instead. If I take a saw and cut everything that appears to be wood, I'm eventually going to cut into to the side of someone's station wagon... - Addionne (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're right, and I like the station wagon = helpful edit metaphor! Suffice it to say removing text apparently isn't a minor edit, which I suppose makes sense as someone (however incorrectly) must have put it there, so would disagree with its removal. Bigger digger (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did not revert your actions, and in fact my associated edit to the page was reinstating your reversion. My only issue with the edit was the fact that you marked it minor, and in the context of the larger content dispute the paragraph does not meet the definition of vandalism. I had just templated the editor who reverted your edit for marking their edit as minor and wanted to maintain fairness. In the interest of full disclosure, I did have at least some awareness of the bigger picture when I added the above template so the "Huggle made me do it" defense does not apply to me (thanks to both of your for assuming good faith on my part though)! VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I hate to be a pain, but if you don't mind, could you help me out again with that LexisNexis account of yours? As before, I'm working on Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri (and assorted LGS games), and I've found a source on Highbeam that would be highly useful. The link is here. Really sorry about this; I'll be sure not to bother you again. If LexisNexis doesn't carry it, don't worry about it—I'll try to find another way to get at it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Addionne, this is Adam Gubman. I am wondering why it is that you have submitted my page for deletion, especially as I happen to have composed music for at LEAST three of the games you have produced (Robin's Quest, Mirror Mysteries, and Escape The Museum 2) for ST Vancouver. Yes, I work for SomaTone, but I also do work for lots of other developers including Square Enix and Ubi Soft (Just Dance Kids) Please respond.

Regardless, I have posted a new page placeholder in the video games composers category, which I am assuming is the reason why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyzpro (talk • contribs) 09:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:RE Genesis Title.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jfioeawfjdls453! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.

If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Theres a deletion discussion on this article. in a previous deletion discussion for another article, you mentioned this company was notable. If you have sources for that notability, and still feel its true, please join in. I note you are conscious of avoiding COI as a game designer, thanks for that. I myself am completely neutral, am not a game designer, am only interested in having a fair and complete list of notable companies at various SFBay city articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)